Plaintiff
Kenneth Dick, a prisoner in the custody of the Idaho
Department of Correction (“IDOC”), is proceeding
pro se in this civil rights action. Pending before the Court
is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants Jefferson County
Sheriff Blair Olsen, Lieutenant Ortega, Sergeant Hernandez,
Sergeant Bush, and Sergeant Hansen (the “Jefferson
County Defendants”)-the only Defendants remaining in
this case.[1] (Dkt. 21.) Also pending are
Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement his Complaint and Motion
to Accept Exhibits as Response to Discovery. (Dkt. 45, 49.)

Having
fully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the facts and
legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and
record and that oral argument is unnecessary. Accordingly,
because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, this matter shall be
decided on the record before this Court without oral
argument. D. Idaho Loc. Civ. R. 7.1. Accordingly, the Court
enters the following order denying Plaintiff's motions,
granting the Jefferson County Defendants' motion, and
dismissing this case.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
is currently incarcerated at the Idaho State Correctional
Institution. Plaintiff claims that, after he was convicted
and sentenced in his state criminal case, he was not provided
with adequate legal materials and, therefore, was unable to
file a timely appeal of his sentence. (Compl., Dkt. 3.) The
Jefferson County Defendants have established, and Plaintiff
does not dispute, that Plaintiff's judgment of conviction
in his underlying criminal case was entered on November 3,
2014. (Ex. A to Aff. of Sam L. Angell (Dkt. 21-2).)

Plaintiff
states that he was incarcerated at the Canyon County Jail
from November 1, 2014, until December 17, 2014, when he was
transferred to the Jefferson County Jail. Plaintiff claims
that the Jefferson County Jail failed to provide sufficient
legal resources to allow Plaintiff to appeal his conviction.
(Compl. at 3.) Plaintiff remained in the custody of Jefferson
County until May 29, 2015, when he was transferred to IDOC
custody. (Id. at 4-7.)

Plaintiff
claims that the Jefferson County Defendants-the sheriff and
four jail deputies-violated his right of access to the
courts.

DISCUSSION

1.
Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement

Plaintiff
filed the instant action in June 2016. One year later,
Plaintiff filed his Motion to Supplement his Complaint. (Dkt.
45.) Plaintiff seeks to reassert claims against Defendant
Stewart, one of the initial Defendants in this case.
Plaintiff also seeks to assert claims against new
defendants-Sergeant Barroso, Keith Yordy, Sergeant Martin,
Deputy Warden Osburn, and Deputy Warden Valley. (See
Dkt. 46.)

Because
the proposed supplement describes events that occurred both
before and after the date of Plaintiff's initial
Complaint, the Court construes Plaintiff's Motion as a
motion to amend the Complaint, rather than a motion to
supplement the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d)
(describing a supplemental pleading as one that sets out
“any transaction, occurrence, or event that happened
after the date of the pleading to be
supplemented” (emphasis added)).

Amendments
to pleadings are governed by Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. That rule states that the Court
“should freely give leave when justice so
requires.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)(2). “In the absence
of any apparent or declared reason- such as undue delay, bad
faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated
failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously
allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of
allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.,
” it is appropriate for a court to grant leave to
amend. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
Although several factors contribute to the analysis of
whether a plaintiff should be allowed an opportunity to
amend, futility alone can justify denying such an
opportunity. Johnson v. Buckley, 356 F.3d 1067, 1077
(9th Cir. 2004).

As for
the claims intended to be asserted against new defendants,
Plaintiff's supplement describes events that took place
after he was transferred out of the custody of Jefferson
County. Therefore, allowing the supplement would have no
effect on the claims against the only remaining Defendants,
and amendment would be futile as to Plaintiff's claims
against those Defendants. As for the reasserted claims
against Defendant Stewart, Plaintiff does not explain why it
took him over a year from the date this case was filed- and
approximately seven months from the date that Judge Bush
determined that the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.